In Articles, Teachings

HouseQuote

I have issued three public challenges (not to mention several private ones) to the more than 215,000 followers on my Facebook page for atheists to provide specific qualified evidence for Darwinian evolution. Each time, my challenge has been met with deafening silence. Yet, when I say something about faith in God or the wonder of His creation, I am met with hostility, insults and mockery from outspoken atheists who say I am unscientific and stupid. Maybe I am ignorant…enlighten me then – answer my question!

I have been in the Church all my life, but I have never seen the dogmatism and blind faith demonstrated by these atheists. They regurgitate old, tired, refuted arguments like a chorus of mocking jays with such overconfidence they seem like a parody of themselves.

If you didn’t see my challenge, here it is again. I am asking for one example (just one) that meets these five criteria:

  1. It must be a random mutation that has occurred naturally
  2. It must have been observed (aka science)
  3. It must have added NEW information to the genome
  4. The mutation must also benefit the host
  5. Don’t resort to citing silly examples of E. Coli or other microorganisms.

Darwin’s model requires this to happen trillions of times. I’m asking for just one example. Truth be told, I could drop several of these criteria and lower the threshold significantly and the challenge would remain unmet. The theory is incredibly vulnerable, yet the atheist will often say to me with religious conviction, “Evolution is a proven fact.” This is such an intentionally misleading statement and here’s why:

Every Christian, no matter how conservative, believes that organisms do adapt and speciate (this is part of God’s brilliant design). If NASA built a rover that could go to an alien planet and adapt to any environmental condition it encountered this would be an example of a more elegant design not less. How then does an atheist look at the amazing ability of life to adapt and, rather than praising it’s brilliant designer, conclude there is none?

So again, Christians DO believe in the kind of “evolution” that exists in the real world; namely, adaptation and speciation. But the Darwinian claim that organisms can evolve into different “kinds” (as opposed to species) by gaining complexity through the addition of new genetic information has NEVER been observed…not even once! (let me clarify, that when I say “Kinds” I’m making a reference to Biblical terminology. The Bible speaks of “kinds” which are a grouping similar to what we would describe today as a genus (plural genera). So there is room for a lot of variation within a “kind”, many species in fact).

Every mutation we know of is the result of an exchange, duplication or loss of information. For example, I have literally had atheists point to Down syndrome as an example of evolution! Who would argue that Down syndrome is a beneficial mutation? But even if it were, it is simply caused by a duplication of genetic information (a third copy of chromosome 21). There is no new genetic information being added whatsoever!

This means that the kind of mutations we have observed cannot change organisms into different or more complex kinds. They will adapt, but they will never be anything other than what they are:

  • A dog’s genes may be manipulated to produce many different breeds but they will always be dogs.
  • Fruit flies may grow a second pair of wings, but they will always be fruit flies.
  • Finches may grow longer beaks, but they will always be finches.
  • Bacteria may find new food to metabolize will always be bacteria.

These adaptations are evidence for a fact that no one disputes, namely that organisms can often adapt to their environment in certain ways. There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that bacteria are becoming dogs and flies are becoming finches. This means that Darwin’s cult is a matter of faith not science. Believe what you want to, but don’t be a hypocrite and hold the Christian to a different standard.

My bottom line – I don’t believe in atheists. They are at war, not with God, but with themselves. They are as conflicted as a child denying its mother. This is why their resistance seems painful and passionate – not what you would expect from someone denying a fairytale. They are rejecting the inner witness of their own souls, the testimony of nature and the conviction of the Holy Spirit. It must be an extremely itchy existence “kicking against the goads.” My heart is broken for the atheist. I’m praying for you today (sincerely). I don’t pray that you would come to any religion (I hate religion as much as anyone). But I pray that you would come to know the love of God through Jesus Christ.

Recent Posts
Showing 142 comments
  • Matt Ledes
    Reply

    The level of proof for accepting a scientific idea is rather high. I wonder if this person’s religious ideas have been subjected to such scrutiny and skepticism before acceptance.

    • Levi

      yes they have. look into the amount of research by scientists done on the bible and you wont have to wonder.

  • Heywood Floyd
    Reply

    Here’s a few beneficial mutations among humans:
    http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans

    I don’t know what ‘genetic information’ is. That term only crops up in this context in creationist circles, near as I can tell. I think you’ll probably attack the examples I gave based on that. The thing about evolution is that humans don’t process time spans like that. We have a hard time imagining how long a thousand years is, let alone 100 million. The fact is that you and me and trees and snails and E. coli are cellular life forms which have genomes made up of a variation on our parents’, plus some mutations, something like 200 per diploid genome for humans. Our children will be the same, variations on our DNA. Is it impossible that mutations which provide even a less than 1% advantage to an organism, compounded over hundreds of generations, will lead to outsized representation of that phenotype in a population, leading to speciation and further change?

    When you look at the diversity and the interconnectedness of the uncountably many lifeforms that exist or could have ever existed, at the blossoming DNA tree of life, at the unfathomably long life of the earth, is it more likely that it arose inexplicably through natural processes spanning billions of years, of which we still only know very little? Or that it was wished into being by an ethereal djinn who was seen ‘so clearly’ by thousands of people, thousands of years ago, who all have (self) contradictory stories about phenomena which looking back are impossible, given everything we know about the universe?

    • Mike Bellsmith

      Hi Heywood,
      I think Daniel’s original post is asking for NEW genetic information. He used the dog example, that we can use the natural adaptation dogs have to breed different sizes, shapes, and colors of dogs. But, they are still dogs, recognize each other as such and can interbreed. NEW genetic information would be the information that changes a dog to something which can interbreed with others of its kind but can no longer interbreed with dogs, and would not be recognized as a dog by them.
      Just my interpretation of the challenge.

  • Patrick
    Reply

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060714-evolution_2.html

    http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/new-finch-species-evolves-our-eyes

    Question about evolution is easily answered. You most have some uninformed followers. Evolution is rarely random (something most misunderstand) it small variances that happen over time where typically the most well adapted will mate and continue the better gene pool. Just like if you are tall and your wife is taller your kids have better odds of being tall. Then if they find a tall mate, so on and so forth. That is how you evolve, every now and then you have a random mutation, they don’t always stick. However you wanted physical proof of evolution and the two articles above have that. So your quest is done. Have a great day.

    • David

      I know that you are trying to show any evidence that you can find to prove evolution, but I would like to inform you that even though it says evolution I the article it is really talking about adaptation. Those birds were adapting to the change in their environment. The question that was put out was evidence of one species turning into another. Not changes within a species.

    • Levi

      I think you missed the point. He acknowledges that finches can evolve into finches more suited for the environment they are in but a finch has not evolved into anything other than a modified finch. Proof would be if a creature could evolve into a completely new or different creature.

  • Chris Peterson
    Reply

    My daughter shared this on facebook. I’m so glad she did because you have just explained it all the way I have been trying to for years! It always blows my mind that people don’t get it. I am amazed at their infantile narcissism; that there cannot possibly be a Designer so grand that they just can’t understand Him – even though there is plenty of evidence – but yet they are content to use even more faith than required of Believers to try to pretend to “know” something.

    Your anaolgy of the NASA rover is GOLD!
    Your criteria has no flaws – even when someone tries to create some by simply exanding on your already-made concise points.
    You also didn’t make the broad assumption that being an atheist comes attached with the belief in evolution. You simply issued a challenge to a specific group (atheists) to provide evidence of proof (science) on a specific subject (evolution). But…. of the few people who do read, most of them seem to be lacking in the reading comprehension dept and therefore simply argue for the sake of arguing. It’s Human Nature. And…. it’s part of the Design!

    I know this post is only a couple of days old and only has, now, three responses. But unamazingly the challenge has still not been met. And I think you already know that it won’t be met. You KNOW that it can’t be because you know the Origin.

    We could talk about the big bang. I believe there was a big bang. And I also believe that it was God that said “Boom”. Atheists, scientists, what have you: Why can there not be a Creator and Grand Designer AND there be humans (that’s us) that have developed the ability to explain some of the effects of the Cause? The details of God’s work IS science. Why is that not okay? What’s so wrong with science and God existing together?

    We are fine with our mother telling us we can’t eat the whole bag of chips while running in the freeway and giving us the reason of “Becasue I said so”. We know, we feel, we have faith, that it is becasue she loves us and wants to protect us. But we can also go to science to get it explained further: The chips have trans fats that clog arteries so consuming them in large quantities may shorten our life span; cars in the freeway may maim or kill us and destroy the mother-child bond and science of attachment to ones offspring. Okay.

    So science can explain love. And God IS love. So science can explain God – but so far we’ve only been able to use it to explain some of the effects of God’s love, not yet the cause. I’m okay with not knowing the rest until I get there. As a child when my parents told me “You’ll understand when you’re older”, I was fine with that. If they wanted me to understand sooner, or saw a need in that, they would have helped me do so. I didn’t bang my head on my wall and try to force an understanding of the love a parent has for a child. I just enjoyed my childhood and knew that they did, in fact, love me and that if I ever had children of my own then I would understand further – when I was supposed to.

    Go ahead. Bang your heads against a wall. Fight and argue to understand something that, not only are you not yet capable of understanding, but that you are not supposed to understand yet. It’s part of the Plan. But you people who hold so much faith in science alone will strangle in your narcissism. So go ahead; knock yourselves out.

    God designed Natural Selection. For every selection there is to be made there is someone who created the available selections. For every piece of javascript that exists – code that tells a computer that “if THIS happens or is selected, then DO this or CAUSE this to happen” – there is a person who wrote that code; a designer. God said: if the finches food begins to hide in holes then allow his beak to grow longer to pluck it out.

    Thanks, Daniel, for the great post and for being awake!

  • JP
    Reply

    They found soft tissue on dinosaur bones in MT.

  • Sarah
    Reply

    I callenge you to please provide specific qualified evidence for the existence of God. Don’t resort to using silly circular reasoning such as the scriptures, Jesus, other prophets or my parents testify of God. You also can’t use feelings as evidence or even what you think was a miracle, especially if it could have happened without a God, however unlikely.
    Don’t forget the other criteria- It must have been observed.

    • Daniel Kolenda

      Very quickly. The most modern physics show that the universe could have come from nothing provided the pre-existence of the laws of nature which by definition are not physical, act on the physical and create the universe from nothing, predate the universe, and predate time itself. This is also the definition of God. If you believe modern physics, you believe in God whether you realize it or not.

    • Heywood Floyd

      Of course you don’t believe that god is JUST the laws of physics or some deistic hoo ha. If you want to think that, it’s an unnecessary assumption, but it’s not unreasonable. If you think god listens to your prayers, judges your behavior, had his own son/himself tortured to death to save humans from the crimes of a forebear which all common sense and modern science suggest never existed, whirls up storms cause of ‘the gays’ even though he made them that way in the first place, orders mass executions, and inexplicably pays so much attention to less than 0% of the solar system of a mediocre star in the outskirts of an exceedingly banal galaxy among trillions of trillions, that doesn’t seem very compatible with the god of Einstein.

    • Andrew

      God has absolute power, yes, but He does not actively control everything. He lets things happen, so that His creation has volition.

    • Pat

      Only the fool says in his heart, “there is no God”.

      I didn’t just say that. You did.

    • Levi

      the simplest response is look up the finding of the ark of the covenant or noahs ark. they are here on earth, they have been found and as everyone knows are mentioned in scripture.

    • Jack A Nory

      DK: “… Physics shows the Universe could have come from nothing… This is also the definition of God.”

      >>> So god’s a synonym for the Universe? As an atheist, I can accept that. (I also say he’s just a metaphor – for orgasm, eternity, infinity, hope, love, the unknown, the unprovable etc but we don’t really need to go there, then.) It’s all the places of worship / religious wars / bigoted believers that spoil the world that annoy me so much about religion. And they’re more than a little anachronistic. Time to get rid, Daniel? Are they not redundant now that you people seem to finally be embracing science? Darwinism – my pet subject – shouldn’t take too long to sink in if you can accept theoretical physics and make the EFFORT to read Origin of species. I could send you my copy if you like?

    • Mike Bellsmith

      New here, but I’d like to jump in.
      Isn’t Sarah’s challenge a category error? Since science presupposes naturalism, it is unequipped to discover something which is not a part of the natural world. It would be like taking something non-physical like the laws of logic and asking to prove evolution using only those laws with no input from the natural world.
      I do believe a good case can be made for the God’s existence using the evidence of His hand in the universe. Just checking on the philosophical purity of the question. 🙂

  • Chris
    Reply

    I’m a Christian, I believe in God, I believe He lives in me, and I believe He loves each and every one of you.

    In the past I too have done the whole debate on creation vs evolution with people who don’t believe in God. But in all that I saw a common theme, and I see it repeated here (despite your honest efforts)…

    A bunch of people just getting ticked off about having their beliefs challenged. Then returning the favor!

    I have a great concern this only pushes people further away from knowing God because our actions show we want to debate and a time of challenge with them. And in doing this, they likewise prepare themselves for that debate (ie Do unto others as you would have them do to you, sounds familiar right?). If we put out a challenge, we better get ready for a challenge!

    I don’t think we’re going to get many falling to their knees ready to admit there is a God.

    The most effective weapon I’ve seen to pull down strongholds in peoples lives is a combination of love and truth. This is never done where truth is put as a challenge though. Its merely offered as a seed after a kind and loving deed.

    That person then has to live with knowing you did that thing for no selfish purpose or motive. And worse still they know you spoke that name that challenges everything in them …. Jesus.

    It’s us that scatter and water seed, but its God who brings the increase.

    If I may suggest further advice, just delete this blog entry and lets get focused on what God does best, powerfully changing peoples lives through His love for them. Lets likewise love them!

    Love always, Chris

    • Roger

      Chris, this is a question about the existence of God and not Creation Science vs (Darwinian)Evolution Science.

      You cannot pretend to be a Christian and also believe there no God, which is what Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution tries to assert.

      So let’s keep the unity of the faith and deal with issues that people are struggling with. Millions are struggling with the question of God existence and it is our job to present the truth both from Scientific and Biblical perspective. The Scientific method and Faith both point to God and that’s what matters.

    • Denise

      Great response Chris.

      I totally agree. It is Jesus’ love that people respond to or don’t. It is the condition of their heart that will determine whether they seek truth or their own agenda. We can never make that choice for anyone BUT we can continue to love on them in the hope they will soften their hearts and humble themselves so the Truth can be REVEALED to them.

      I recommend the movie “Compelled by Love” about the Bakers in Mozambique. This is a great example of how to live and love like Jesus.

    • Jack A Nory

      “… It is our job to present the truth both from Scientific and Biblical perspective. The Scientific method and Faith both point to God and that’s what matters.”

      Can you define God, Roger, because the above quote of yours is utter nonsense if you ask me. And somewhat contradictory. Where exactly does science ‘point to god’?

      The only thing religion and science have in common is that neither has all the answers (and almost certainly never will). Sorry, I forget you guys CLAIM to have all the answers when you use your circular arguments in proclaiming the existence of a supernatural being.

      When you turn your light off at night Roger do you spend the night wondering where the light went? Because when an animal dies, that’s what its like. The flow of electricity in its nervous system pretty much stops. But you guys insist on heaven and hell as being real places and not just metaphors for how you’re remembered by those that outlive you???

      You should all be used car salesmen. Your lives would have more purpose!

    • Duncan

      Hello Chris & Denise,

      Well I don’t agree with you view b’se you can’t separate the Love of God from its Truthfulness b’se God is Love & Truth.

      You may love someone off the Truth & guess what make believers in Church but not on Christ hence believers in vain as Paul mentions in 1 Cor 15:1-2.

      Love is key, we can’t share the Gospel unless we’re act out of love & believe me you can’t share the Gospel without presenting the TRUTH only, there’s only ONE God Creator of Heaven & Earth. Preach the TRUTH in LOVE my brothers, you just can’t separate them.

    • Roger

      Thanks Duncan for that precision. Salvation without Jesus Christ is a mere spiritual fraud!

      Jack A Nory,

      Of course you need to understand the difference between Science and Scientism. Scientism generally points, by faith, to the non-existence of God.

      I was about to reply and found DK’s latest post:

      “If you believe modern physics, you believe in God whether you realize it or not.”

      and would add to it the following: There can be no laws of physics or even the Scientific Method, hence scientific evidence for anything, cannot stand without the pre-supposition of the Law of Uniformity that only God can guarantee.

      I speak of Law of Uniformity by opposition to capricious or random universe where all our constants can just change, where all of the sudden a day start to last 10000 hours or gravity is 1 today and become 9 or 250 the next day.

      Bottom line: if Science can go as far back as possible or as far ahead as possible in time, the existence of God is evident.

      You seem to also struggle with the issue of life after death: the truth is, there is life after death, in fact life is more real after death. When you turn on the light in your room tonight and everything turns dark, don’t worry: the light is still there! And just as sure as night and day are well evident to us, so is life and life after death. The good news I have for you is that you dont have to be afraid and you can prepare for it on this side of the grave.

      If your reasoning ends up being the truth, I have nothing to loose, because I am enjoying the present life to the fullest. But if it is not, I invite you to think hard about that. 🙂

    • Jack A Nory

      Roger: “When you turn on [sic] the light in your room tonight and everything turns dark, don’t worry: the light is still there!”

      >>> My!

      Does the same thing apply when I turn off my mp3 player and my TV set Roger? Are the tunes I’ve been listening to / the TV shows I’ve been enjoying still playing? In the ether? Even without electricity?

      I think we might have just found the modern world’s ‘holy grail’!

      Free, green, energy. If we can harness this light that can’t be seen and sound that can’t be heard, that is!

      How exactly do I go about joining your religion? Where should I send all my money? You’ve convinced me!

      🙂

  • Molo
    Reply

    When the only think keeping you from beliving something (be it the theory of evolution or quantum mechanics) is that you then have to seriously alter your view of the world, then it’s not very convincing whatever counter-example/argument/proof you may come up with.

  • M
    Reply

    I find it extremely hippocritical putting these requirements on the theory of Darwinism without being able to meet them with your own beliefs. What ‘proof’ do you have but a book?
    How inconsiderate of you to deny not only atheists beliefs, but numerous other religions. I am an atheist and do not go around denying your God, or Nirvana or the Hindu God’s.
    This world would be a much better place if all people, regardless of their religion, race, sexual preference, gender or other difference practiced understanding, tolerance and above all kindness to the wonderful variations of us you just preached was a gift of God.
    I hope you can learn this before a new form of religious terror arises. We are all here to stay so we may as well make peace not hate.

    • Roger

      M,
      By your own admission, you are not an Atheist. Maybe confused and needing guidance, but definitely not an atheist.

      Either that, or you don’t know what atheism is.

  • Johannes
    Reply

    So here I am a christian scientist having to meet challenges of a christian creationist.
    I have an example but you won’t like it.
    Lactose-tolerance!
    Normal ppl can’t tolerate lactose after the age of 2 this has been so for ages you can read it in every text that you find in Europe or the middle east that is older than about 1400 years.
    in about 1400BC the wealth in Europe for the masses increased drastically making Milk products available for mostly everyone and since we all know milk is rather healthy for you ppl who could tolerate consuming lots of it where bigger and stronger and therefore lived longer in a war ridden Europe therefore produced more offspring. By now nearly 75% of all Europeans and European ancestored Americans are lactose tolerant. While the Asians are not only smaller and less strong but also all lactose intolerant due to their culture not using milk cause it doesn’t agree with them.

    And now let me disprove the absoluteness of Gen 1. Night and Day are obviously measurements of time referring to the length of the rotation of the earth around itself thereby evoking the illusion of the sun moving up and down the sky.
    but the sun and the moon which shine upon the earth illuminating it where created upon the third day.
    “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also” (Gen 1, 16). Therefore this creation myth used the measurement of the sun without the sun actually being there which makes no sense. here we see that this myth is a way of showing that god planed everything on this Planet to be the way it is. And if you would have tried to feed that evolution gene theory to old Israel no one would have understood so they needed a simpler to understand version which is the story we find in Gen 1 and the other version (not involving the days…..) in Gen 2.
    And now the rid us of the Problem of being a christian and believing in evolution as a good theory to describe the world around us. There is none!!! God can work in any way so he can work in manipulating probability. And to all the Atheist out there having a ball on thinking that science’s like Biology or Physics could find absolute truths sorry to disappoint again. Natural science by default is in search not for truth but for theory’s that explain the facts the best.

    • Jason

      your comments display your biblical ignorance – God is light and in him there is no darkness. when he created the earth and set it in motion before him he was its first light. the new heaven and new earth that will replace this one has no sun or moon ether, for the Lord is its light.
      Gods account of creation isn’t myth, he was there and knows what he did, preserving it in the Word of God. The willingness to lean on our own understanding and the understanding of others, as well as call God a liar does not bode well with your claim to be a christian, as without faith it is imposable to please God. If death and destruction existed before Adam it make the concept of sin entering the world through Adam a nonsense. Therefore the reason for our savoir is also redundant,form a Biblical point of view. Not to mention that God lied when he said everything was good (at least 6 times).
      i would encourage you to get acquainted with the Bible and this God you claim as yours. You will find out who you are in him (if indeed you are in him 2 Corinthians 13:5). But most importantly, not only that he doesn’t lie but that he is the one who keeps the Word true. any less a God is unable to be the savoir we need!

  • George
    Reply

    You know I read comments like these and I think of life’s number one question and that is “what is the answer?”

  • Dave Branch
    Reply

    Religion is therapy, nothing more.

    Man, in his ego, created this theory. He called it “God.” Of course, he called it “Him.” “It” is more believable, as the theory of god with a gender is ludicrous. Other men, in their need for employment, expanded on these theories, based on the idea that your suffering now would get you a reward later. In the Reformation, global capitalism usurped this theory for itself, and will gladly pay your some day for you labor today.

    Other men needed jobs, too, and they created their own theories, some technological ones even had practical benefit to the needs of humanity. There were great minds looking into the cosmos, and theories of big bangs, black holes, background radiation, resonance frequency, and string theory, and have even found theories of parallel universes.

    Darwin and other more earth-bound scientists also created theories. Imagination may be fun and enlightening, but it too often overlooks the basic needs of humanity. For what other purpose would we be here than to shepherd the needs of humanity, the planet, and all living creatures? To debate theory? That is YOUR toy, your pet, your personal ejaculation, and it provides income for the many here who prey on fear, hatred, and human frailty.

    While so many revel in self-congratulatory theoretical discovery, the human needs of man are shuffled to the bottom of the deck, while year after year, century after century, your theories repeat the same drab and recycled premises, expecting different results.

    We could dicker over evolution, Charles Dickens’ proud theory, as so many do. Just for giggles, I might even ponder why evolution must entail “adding,” change of culturally inculcated “more.” Your “Down’s” example, for example, makes no sense. Apes have 48 chromosomes. Down’s LOST one from that, and humans lost one more. Perhaps our evolution was an evolution of LESS, not more, when, over thousands of centuries, the 47th gene, with it’s inhibiting characteristics, fell off, and our 46 evolved into theoretical beings.

    The point here really is NOT whether one theory or another is true or better, not if those who are not entranced by theory are in some vague internal turmoil, but why this theory love can not be placed in proper perspective beneath the fundamental basic needs of humanity and common sense. Erich Fromm spoke to this dysfunction in “The Sane Society” and several other compositions of theoretical social science. Our frame of reference is insane from this preponderance of theory, so we never get down to the human facts.

    Religion is humanity’s red herring.

  • Monty
    Reply

    The reason people painfully and passionately fight your god cult is because its logic-compromised followers run too much of the modern world.

  • Monty
    Reply

    The best reason to not believe in a god is simply because there isn’t one.
    To put it best:
    “I’m glad you enjoy a book”-Patton Oswalt, comedian

  • Matt Philleo
    Reply

    As an artist, I am offended by the notion that something with not only inherent beauty but also synergistic function can be said to arise out of a series of random processes guided by chance and a lot of time. Likewise, an incredibly detailed portrait by Chuck Close did not arise by chance, and it would be an offense to claim that his hyperrealism can be achieved through RANDOM splatters of paint. It is impossible. You could never achieve it, even after millions of tries. You could possibly create an abstract by Jackson Pollock through that method, but certainly not a painting intended to represent reality.

    Atheists, in trying to explain the universe’s existence without God are like art historians attempting to explain the meaning behind an Old Master’s work, while ignoring the explanation written by the artist himself. The incredible design of this universe attests to the existence of a Designer, and not only that, but this Designer has given us a record of Himself, namely the Bible.

    To all atheists: have you read the Bible? Have you asked the deity you don’t believe in, but might be willing to believe in (if you truly are open minded ) to make Himself real to you as you read? He has done that for countless generations, and He will do that for you, if you are willing and really want to learn. You know this life is short, and 10 out of 10 people die. With all the time you spend preparing for where you will go to college, where you will work, and when and how you will retire, don’t you think it would be wise to prepare for the inevitable?

    Jesus said, “I have come that they may have life and have it more abundantly.”

    • Alistair

      @Matt – Do any other species other than humans appreciate art? Does that not tell you that we ‘evolved’ an appreciation for art? And besides, if we all, without exception, enjoyed the same forms of art, I may start to concur with your point, but we don’t.

      To the OP: Changes in “kind” happen over 100’s of thousands of years at the shortest, if not over millions of years. I doubt that any human would live long enough to witness a change in “kind”, do you?

      @Roger – How arrogant you are for challenging somebody on their claim of being an atheist! So you choose to believe in talking snakes, a flat earth, a talking donkey, a man surviving inside a fish for 3 days, etc, etc. That sounds totally legit to you, does it? Well I, as an atheist, choose not to believe in a book written by Bronze Age herdsmen with little insight into the true machinations of the world.

    • Jack A Nory

      Hey Alistair,

      If you’re referring to ‘Jonah’, it was a frenzied whale attack that he survived and not a fish attack. Allegedly.

      By the way, may I ask why you chose not to mock the ‘good lord’ moving Mary in just the right way, so as to beget Jesus? That’s got to be the craziest of the parables imho. A personal favourite.

      😉

  • Sam
    Reply

    Firstly, I highly doubt your challenges are met with silence unless your facebook following consists purely of an audience that is so blindly and aggressively religious that they discount everything they encounter in life that could possibly cause doubt of their faith. Educated people the world over, from all religions and those of no religion, all understand that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is currently our best fitting explanation of how life has progressed on this planet. We are not claiming that this is the exact and only explanation, the theory is simply the best we have found so far. Admitting that it is only correct for the information we have so far is the reason science progresses so quickly. Religious beliefs fail to accept that there is any chance an opinion other than their own could be correct and this is why you can’t reason with that type of religious person. This type of religious belief is dangerous, it is the cause of the majority of terrorism and war, it causes outbreaks of preventable disease because of myths about vaccination, it halts medical research because a certain type of cell is taboo.

    Let’s end your overly confined challenge by looking at the most recent mutation of humans, lactose tolerance. This is a random mutation that naturally occurred and has become more common in humans over time. It has been observed and it benefits the host. It also meets the other 2 absurd criteria you insist on being that it is not a very, very small organism and it has added new information. I disagree with both of these as the size of an organism doesn’t change the validity of the argument and adding or subtracting information from the genome are both viable mutations that could benefit or harm. Historically, genes were passed on depending on natural selection. In this way good mutations are likely to continue and bad mutations are likely to die out. Both are an equal part of Darwinian evolution.

    I don’t necessarily believe that a god does not exist. I am not an atheist, more an apatheist, but athiest have a far better argument than you. When atheists rack up a death count as high as religion or when they start to deliberately hold back scientific progress or when they discriminate against sexual orientation or when they show a significant trend of their leaders (your priests) molesting children. Maybe then I will reconsider. Until then, religion has no place in this world.

  • Chris Conscience
    Reply

    I believe in God and the doctrine of creation.. I have complete and unmovable faith in what the scriptures said…for others they may opt to believe their god darwin or dawkins or themselves..we can debate everyday about different theory of atheist or other ism.. but the bottom line is, its a matter of faith… Whosoever will… believing God is open for everyone… but not for every one..

    • Jack A Nory

      If it’s all just ‘a matter of faith’ (as you put it, Chris) and you reject evolution that all the evidence in the world supports, then I think you shouldn’t be hypocritical and that you should reject ALL of science, also. In its entirety. Don’t fly on planes. Don’t use the Internet. And when you fall ill… there’s always PRAYER.

      Good luck!

    • Roger

      Jack A Nory,
      There is no conflict between Faith and Science. There are vain arguments between extremists on both sides.

      I am a man of Faith and a Scientist to the core. What I have noticed is that many confuse Scientific conclusions and deductions with Science itself. Pure Science is all about discovery, interpretation and invention with the aim of improving human life in specific areas.

      Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, non theists better look somewhere else for arguments, because the burden of proof in Science is too heavy for them to lift, because, to be humble and fair in my assessment, Science points to God, meaning that with all scientific discoveries and evidences, the existence of God is more probable than the non-existence. Now all you need is the leap of Faith because without it you probably will never be able to embrace your creator.

  • John L.
    Reply

    If you ask Richard Dawkins, life could have originated from a superior kind of alien race. Anything is plausible but the Supreme uncreated God from whom all life originates and to whom all of humanity is ultimately accountable. http://youtu.be/hDvaPzg32W8

  • Taylor
    Reply

    Those criteria can’t be met, but we don’t need to meet them to prove evolution….. You’re asking us to prove macro-evolution when humans have only been around long enough to observe micro-evolution. The only difference is the time scale. Micro= small changes, macro= a slowly forming compilation of small changes resulting in a big change. The fact that micro evolution has been observed is proof enough that macro evolution will inevitably happen. It’s just what logically follows.

  • Andrew Warren
    Reply

    Here is what I find amusing. Everyone on this page (including the author) is asking for proof of the other persons belief. But they have no proof of their own. There is no proof that Jesus existed. There is no proof that there is a God. The Bible is a selection of writings that were found. There have been lots of writings found. But the ones that didn’t collaborate the desired story were omitted. Ergo the Gnostic scriptures. The book of Mohammed. The Cathlotic Bible. The Protestant Bible. Are all different. The fact that the past is full of attempts to eradicate others beliefs through wars and genocide shows the extent that church heads went to to remove the “proof” of other’s beliefs. There were scriptures burnt and destroyed because they contradicted the story. on the other side of the table are scientists with Theories. No exact facts. The possibility of Evolution. Fossils are found all the time but what do they really prove? May be aliens do exist! They may be God? No one knows because there is no proof. Believe what you want. Just don’t shove it down people’s throats. Don’t come and knock on my door and preach. I leave you with this thought… If Adam and Eve had children and their children had incest. And they had incest to create more children for incest. Then your belief says that we are all just a bunch of retards!!! And may be you’re right!

    • Chris Peterson

      Andrew, I think you have some good points. I’d be okay with aliens being the ones that seeded this planet and sharing DNA with them. Why not. It doesn’t make me less of me. I also think it’s hard to preach an exact truth too much when there have been so many writings destroyed. But I think we’ll know everything that we’re supposed to when we are supposed to.

      As for no proof Jesus walked this earth: There is also no proof that any person long-dead leaving a now-empty grave ever existed except for writings.
      And I take issue with the the lines: “Just don’t shove it down people’s throats. Don’t come and knock on my door and preach.” since I was under the impression that this is Daniel’s own personal blog page that people don’t have to visit. Unless, of course, Daniel sent a link of this page to your personal email or something then, yeah, he overstepped.

      And I have never thought too deeply about this until now, but, however the human species started, there had to be some incest. There had to be the first one or two of everything and there could not ever be more w/o those first two making it happen, right? Not that YOU are bashing the Bible story, but to the people who do for the sake of trying to make it seem trashy: I’d love to hear a way that a mammalian, hetero-sexual species could expand past the first two w/o incest.

      But overall, great response and I’m with ya on several points!

    • Jack A Nory

      Whilst I know for a fact that humans have performed incest throughout human history, sadly, I think your understanding of what scientists refer to as speciation is lacking somewhat Chris. No scientist worth his salt would ever talk of ‘the first one or two animals’ of a species. It really doesn’t work that way. Speciation tends to be a lot more blurred than that.

      For example, a classic method of speciation occurs at sea (eg. GALAPAGOS) where an island species gets carried to a distant island with no way of ,back. It could be a THOUSAND rats on a ship for example. Now, if those rats can’t get back to their ancestral population, with time, speciation WILL occur in that there will come a point when individuals of the 2 separated populations will no longer be able to produce fertile offspring if subsequently brought together. The earth’s 4.5 billion years old roughly. There’s been a lot of speciation events. NONE will have relied on incest.

      Hope this clarifies things a little.

  • Kelly
    Reply

    Are you a scientist?

    • Otanda

      These are all examples of adaptation which no one disputes at all. If someone denies micro-evolution then yes they’re stupid.

    • maybeageek

      Hmm… every single example on the website you have posted does not meet the requirements. They are examples of selection, and maybe of adaption, the Genome isn’t altered at all.

    • Guy with a First and Last Name

      Hi. All of those are examples of adaptation which, as mentioned in the article, no one is disputing.

    • Roger

      That’s exactly what is so troublesome. People just speaking about what they don’t fully understand.

      Homo Sapien,
      None of those is in line with Darwinian Evolution that is being gradually debunked. No one disputes micro-evolution, metamorphosis, adaptation, etc Those are basic laws of nature baked into almost all species.

  • Glenn Kasper
    Reply

    Darren. Hmmm…fact??…that it takes millions of years “that such mutations and changes to the gene coding for even simple and lasting changes”?? If this were a fact then the fruit fly experiment is set to complete in what…a million years from now??

  • Lucy Hope
    Reply

    I don’t like this assumption that being an atheist means you believe in Darwinian evolution. Just because one doesn’t believe in a higher being does not mean they necessarily agree with science. All religions have around the same amount of proof, which is a very small amount.

    • Jack A Nory

      Wow!

      Are you saying you’re an atheist who doesn’t believe in Darwin, Lucy? Naturally, I could understand such people existing if they’ve never heard of Darwin / Alfred Russel Wallace (the co-founder). But if you have and are familiar with all the evidence and how evolution is ‘supposed’ to work, then it would be very strange indeed in my not so humble opinion. And PLEASE say you’re not labelling Darwinian evolution to be ‘a mere religion’ with that last sentence of yours!

    • Roger

      Of course! Darwinian Evolution is not a fact of science. It is a scientific theory whose conclusion and deductions are based on faith. It is a belief system.

      I guess the fish cannot see the ocean it is swimming in, except by faith.

    • Jack A Nory

      It’s hardly religious codswallop, Roger. There’s LOTS of evidence. If you’ll tell the truth, just this once!

  • Jason
    Reply

    Hi Daniel,

    I would like to begin a correspondence with you. It seems you have many incorrect ideas about evolution and atheism. Maybe I can help to explain these better. As an ex-Christian I understand preconceived notions put out in the Christian community. I noticed your article sounds like a Hovind lecture.

    My goal here would be to help you understand both evolution and atheism (mutually independent). I hope you will take this offer. If you would like, give me your understanding of what evolution is and we can go from there.

    Thanks and have a good day

    Jason

Leave a Reply to Chris Peterson Cancel reply